SADASIVAN ACHARY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is to quash Exs. P3 and P5 orders passed by the RTO. the 3rd respondent and the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, respectively. The RTO. by Ex. P3 order suspended the registration of the vehicle KLA. . 2023 for four months for the reason that the petitioner, the registered owner, hired it out on 15 51967 without taking a taxi permit for the vehicle. It is alleged that the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector checked the vehicle on that day, and found that one Syed Mohammed and his family were travelling in the car paying the hire. It was on the basis of the check report that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Ex. P1 notice dated 26 51967. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that Syed Mohammed and his family were his neighbours and family friends, and that he allowed them to use the car without payment of hire.

(2.) RTO. passed Ex. P3 on the basis that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner. This is a mistake committed by him. The petitioner filed an appeal. In the appeal the District Collector found on the basis of the check report that Syed Mohammed and his family were travelling in the car paying the hire, and that the check report can be relied upon since the driver of the car as the owner's agent has signed the report.